Posted on 08/31/2006 11:46:13 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee may lose his seat to challenger Steve Laffey, according to a new statewide Republican primary voter poll released today by the Bureau of Government Research and Services at Rhode Island College.
The survey was conducted August 28-30, 2006, at Rhode Island College by Victor L. Profughi, director of the Bureau of Government Research and Services. It is based on a statewide random sample of 363 likely Republican primary voters in Rhode Island. The sample was proportioned among the state’s geographic regions to reflect the likely voter contribution from each portion of the state. Overall, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.
If the September 12 primary were held today, 51 percent say they will vote for Steve Laffey, 34 percent support Senator Chafee, and 15 percent are undecided. A BGRS survey of Republican voters conducted in June had Laffey at 39 percent and Chafee at 36 percent. Chafee’s base is virtually unchanged since the June survey, while the number of Laffey supporters has grown 12 percentage points.
In the current poll, Laffey buries Chafee among male voters by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, 58 percent to 32 percent, with only 9 percent undecided. This gap has widened from 10 percent in June to 26 percent today. Among women, Chafee’s support has remained stagnant, while Laffey’s has increased. In June, 37 percent favored Chafee, compared with the current 36 percent. Laffey’s support among women has gone up from 35 percent in June to 45 percent.
Regionally, Laffey leads Chafee in Newport County (58 percent to 25 percent), in the Providence Suburbs (56 percent to 33 percent), Blackstone Valley (49 percent to 32 percent), Washington County (48 percent to 39 percent), and Western Rhode Island (42 percent to 37). Chafee is ahead only in the city of Providence (53 percent to 40 percent) and the East Bay (40 percent to 36 percent). Among unaffiliated voters, Chafee’s support has slipped from 49 percent in June to 43 percent now, while Laffey’s strength has gone up 10 percentage points (31 percent to 41 percent).
“Since early summer, Senator Chafee has been unable to expand his base of support from roughly one third of the likely Republican primary voters. The Lieberman phenomenon, where a partisan base closes ranks around the ‘true partisan’ candidate, seems to be at work in Rhode Island, as it was on the Democratic side in Connecticut. Laffey’s efforts to link Chafee with the extremely unpopular President Bush also appear to be paying off,” said Profughi.
Respondents polled were also asked who they would vote for in the Republican Primary race for Lieutenant Governor between Reginald Centracchio and Kerry King. Nearly half of those surveyed are either undecided or will not vote on this race (51 percent). Among voters, Centracchio has a 2 to 1 lead over King (31 percent to 18 percent).
The survey was conducted at a centralized telephone bank on the RIC campus on Monday, August 28 through Wednesday, August 30, between 5:00 and 9:00 p. m. The sample of 363 voters consisted of persons who identified themselves as likely Republican primary voters. Those interviewed were randomly chosen from most recent updated voting lists provided by the Office of the Secretary of State and were limited to registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters who said they planned to vote in the Republican primary.
The sample was controlled to reflect likely voter contribution by geographic region. Survey design, implementation, and administration were supervised by Profughi, who has nearly 40 years of experience conducting public opinion surveys in Rhode Island. He and members of his supervisory and computer analysis team have conducted more than 1,000 surveys in the state since 1970.
Overall, the current poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Uhh, yah, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Gore and Kerry both got well over 60% of the vote in RI.
Laffey is polling more then 20% behind the D.
Chafee is worthless, so I don't care all that much who wins the primary, but you shouldn't be dellusional, it would take divine intervention for Laffey to win the general.
The one thing dewine and chafee have in common is that the wingnuts on FR hate them both and they are both more in tune with the voters in their states than the wingnuts are.
I've switched to Chafee on this race. Kinda.
I still don't really care who wins, as Chafee is worthless, but because of the Lieberman defeat, I think it would be better for us to keep Linc around, because it will be harder to accuse the D's of being extremists for ousting him.
Yah, yah, I know, Lieberman agreed with them on 85%+ of things while Chafee...pretty much never agrees with us, Lieberman was a longtime party stalward, VP pick etc. while Chafee was appointed to fill out his father's term and only won one term against a marginal D based on name recognition, etc.
But that kind of stuff won't register with the media or everyday voters. Right now, the Lieberman defeat is a great tool to prove that the D's are owned by the Kos crowd, which they clearly are, and this would make it more difficult.
Bottom line is, while often people "say" there isn't really any difference between the two candidates, in this case, their actually "isnt" any difference between Chafee or Whitehouse. So, since there is no difference at all, and since it would take an act of God for Laffey to win the general, I'd rather Chafee just because I think it would help us beat on the D's for Lieberman's defeat, which could really help Santorum, Talent, Burns etc.
But that said, I don't really care. It probably won't be "that" big of a difference either way.
If Laffey wins the primary, I'll wish him luck, but I won't have any dellusions about his ability to win.
Rhode Island is not as hopelessly Democrat as you suppose, and it is not averse to electing moderate-to-conservative Republicans such as Laffey---in fact, Governor Carcieri is no less conservative than Laffey, and he was elected with 55% in 2002. Kerry is from next-door Mass., and he got 59.42% in RI. For the sake of comparison, President Bush got 62.86% in North Dakota in 2004, and that hasn't stopped liberal-to-moderate Democrats Conrad and Dorgan from being elected to the Senate.
Laffey will be the underdog against Whitehouse, but I think he's got a shot at the upset. Pay no heed to polls taken before he defeats Chafee; the general election campaign won't begin until the day after the primary.
I agree that neither should be expected to be Tom Coburn or Mitch McConell, but I would agrue that, especially Chafee, isn't exactly 'in touch' with the voters of his state.
If Chafee were more like, say, Arlen Specter, who's an intellectually honest, moderate to liberal on domestic issues and moderate to conservative on FP issues, then I'd agree. But Chafee isn't like Specter. Chafee literally supports NO causes that could even be remotely considered right of center.
It's also worthy of note that the past two RI governors, Lincoln Almond and Don Carcari are both Republicans and both significantly more conservative then Chafee.
More then that, John Chafee, Lincoln's father, was a big supporter of George W. Bush's Presidential Run before his death in late 1999. Chafee didn't even vote for him in 2004.
DeWine is a little different. I'd argue that he shouldn't be Tom Coburn, but that he should be more like, say, Norm Coleman or John Sununu. I especially don't think his views on Gun Control are warrented by his state. That said, I don't particuarly dislike DeWine, and I hope he wins.
(For the record, I'd call myself a 'common sense conservative' i.e. I like both John McCain and Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn and Norm Coleman. Mostly, I just like people with strong values that I agree with more then not.)
I agree that neither should be expected to be Tom Coburn or Mitch McConell, but I would agrue that, especially Chafee, isn't exactly 'in touch' with the voters of his state.
If Chafee were more like, say, Arlen Specter, who's an intellectually honest, moderate to liberal on domestic issues and moderate to conservative on FP issues, then I'd agree. But Chafee isn't like Specter. Chafee literally supports NO causes that could even be remotely considered right of center.
It's also worthy of note that the past two RI governors, Lincoln Almond and Don Carcari are both Republicans and both significantly more conservative then Chafee.
More then that, John Chafee, Lincoln's father, was a big supporter of George W. Bush's Presidential Run before his death in late 1999. Chafee didn't even vote for him in 2004.
DeWine is a little different. I'd argue that he shouldn't be Tom Coburn, but that he should be more like, say, Norm Coleman or John Sununu. I especially don't think his views on Gun Control are warrented by his state. That said, I don't particuarly dislike DeWine, and I hope he wins.
(For the record, I'd call myself a 'common sense conservative' i.e. I like both John McCain and Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn and Norm Coleman. Mostly, I just like people with strong values that I agree with more then not.)
What are the chances that he'll pull a lieberman?
If this were an open seat, I'd agree that Laffey would have a shot. A very small shot, but a shot.
But if he wins the primary, he'll have unseated the 'moderate' Republican, and will be decried by the media as an 'extremist' etc. I don't think that, given RI's tilt, there is any way he can overcome that, especially over Whitehouse, who's already won Statewide before.
All of RI wouldn't make a decent size county west of the Mississippi. So if they don't elect a "small town mayor", who else do they have. I suppose they could import someone from out-of-state, like New York did.
Thanks for your clear headed thinking. People don't know him so much yet, but they will like what they learn.
"FYI, there is twice the enthusiasm for the rino dewine than the real conservative blackwell in ohio.
Tell me why you think that is or why you think blackwell is not a real republican."
I suspect the Ohio and national republican organization, with all the money and the big name talent, are out in force for our RINO. For heavens sake....that same combination in Pennsylvania managed to save Specter from the wrath of the base.
I work on the assumption that any state party is broken into three groups. The largest group by far are folk who are registered republican but neither contribute money nor volunteer to work in any campaign. The next biggest group is what I call the base and consists of the lions share of activists. They do contribute minor amounts and lots of time. They attend rally's, stuff envelopes, and serve on lower level republican committees. They are activists but with very little voice or power except in their numbers. The final group is by far the smallest, perhaps 1% of the party in the state BUT, they have the bucks. This is the group that picks the candidates for the big positions, contributes the big money, attends the fund raisers, hobnobs with the elites in the state and epitomize the country club crowd. They would not be caught dead at a rally in the rain but will cough up $1000 so attend a fund raiser with the VP. These are the folk who run things.
How they run things is easy. They control the party leadership and they have the money that can convince the far larger group, the republicans who only vote, that their guy is better than any challenger. This works because the the challenger seldom has any real money and his supporters, that base, is too small to clinch the vote by themselves.
The country club check writers can drag in a party superstar if the upstart real republican gets too dangerous which results in the party incumbent winning most primary fights, regardless of how worthless he is and how poorly he represents or supports the party, president or agenda.
Let me ask the question back at you....how would the good senator do if those check writers and the party superstars showed up to campaign for his challenger...same guy, same challenger?
I contend the challenger would be up 10 points. Chaffee in RI is in trouble because he is too far from his base and even the normal uninterested republican voter in RI to be saved by the powers that be...Ohio is still firmly controlled by the old boy check writing establishment for the Senator to be beaten in a Primary, BUT, a good bit of the base will stay home in disgust in the general and then the slight republican majority in the state may not be enough to save him.
When the dust settles, the party leadership will not say..."we didn't listen. We pushed crap on the base"...no, they will blame the base, call that group stupid and short sighted and hunt for a new RINO for the next election cycle.
They seldom learn.
The wingnut conservatives who want to purge the party before converting the public, will in the end, achieve the goal of electing liberal democrats. To them I say "FU".
Go live in fantasy land and get out of the GOP because you guys are worse than useless.
Chafee getting chafed... put some Windex on it RINO (I know it won't make it better, but it is better than nothing).
Our side loses because we back off our principles AND because we tend to lack political will and political skill.
I agree that the careerist mentality is a big problem. But I don't think that a career politician must have a careerist (unprincipled) mentality, that amateurs cannot become careerists, or that principled amateurs are enough. You also need toughness, focus, know-how and knowledge. The guy or gal who wants to play in the arena for a few years and then get back to his hometown and his kids' ballgames rarely accomplishes much.
"The guy or gal who wants to play in the arena for a few years and then get back to his hometown and his kids' ballgames rarely accomplishes much."
I think that's one of the problems. The professional politicians have made it their "arena" for them to "play" in instead of a serious place to do the peoples work.
Unfortunately, "the people's work" has become very complicated because government has become so complicated.
The conservative legislator is up against a formidable apparatus of entrenched, skillful, and politically serious liberal legislators, lobbyists and bureaucrats. We're not in Kansas anymore. You're right to say the professional politicians "have made it their arena." But we can't change that by sending only "citizen legislators" to do battle with them. That's close to unilateral disarmament.
If a legislator wants to contribute to a rolling-back of government, or even to stopping the autopilot that makes it ever-larger, he/she needs some staying power -- and some expertise in at least one aspect of government, an expertise that is developed only over a period of years.
And the RINO lovers wail....
Chafee is as liberal as Hillary.
Why should we have Republican Senators that are as liberal as Hillary?
Are you a "purist" if you think R's should at least pretend to be conservative?
If you think Conservatives are idiots, you are welcome to leave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.